Right to work States, does it increase Jobs or is it a myth?
By EvanHunter
@EvanHunter (4026)
United States
February 22, 2011 9:10pm CST
Following is the unemployment rate for Jan 25th, 2011.
1 NORTH DAKOTA 3.8 (right to work)
2 NEBRASKA 4.4 (right to work)
3 SOUTH DAKOTA 4.6 (right to work)
4 NEW HAMPSHIRE 5.5
5 VERMONT 5.8
6 IOWA 6.3 (right to work)
7 HAWAII 6.4
7 WYOMING 6.4 (right to work)
9 VIRGINIA 6.7 (right to work)
10 KANSAS 6.8 (right to work)
10 OKLAHOMA 6.8 (right to work)
12 MINNESOTA 7.0
13 MONTANA 7.2
14 MAINE 7.3
15 MARYLAND 7.4
16 UTAH 7.5 (right to work)
16 WISCONSIN 7.5
18 ARKANSAS 7.9 (right to work)
19 LOUISIANA 8.0 (right to work)
20 ALASKA 8.1 (right to work)
21 MASSACHUSETTS 8.2
21 NEW YORK 8.2
23 TEXAS 8.3 (right to work)
24 DELAWARE 8.5
24 NEW MEXICO 8.5
24 PENNSYLVANIA 8.5
27 COLORADO 8.8
28 CONNECTICUT 9.0
29 ALABAMA 9.1 (right to work)
29 NEW JERSEY 9.1
31 ILLINOIS 9.3
31 WASHINGTON 9.3
33 ARIZONA 9.4 (right to work)
33 TENNESSEE 9.4 (right to work)
35 IDAHO 9.5 (right to work)
35 INDIANA 9.5
35 MISSOURI 9.5
38 OHIO 9.6
38 WEST VIRGINIA 9.6
40 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 9.7
41 NORTH CAROLINA 9.8 (right to work)
42 MISSISSIPPI 10.1 (right to work)
43 GEORGIA 10.2 (right to work)
44 KENTUCKY 10.3 (right to work)
45 OREGON 10.6
46 SOUTH CAROLINA 10.7 (right to work)
47 RHODE ISLAND 11.5
48 MICHIGAN 11.7
49 FLORIDA 12.0 (right to work)
50 CALIFORNIA 12.5
51 NEVADA 14.5 (right to work)
So what do you think about the numbers? Is there a valid argument? From what I can see it looks like its pretty evenly mixed. Could it be that maybe it has more to do with all the jobs that have went to Mexico and China than unions? Unions or not do you really think American workers can compete against Mexico at top wages of around $6 dollars a day and China which is even less?
Info:
http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm
http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm
3 responses
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
23 Feb 11
Yeah, it seems rather mixed to me as far as employment goes. But I'm always iffy about "numbers" put on something like that. Do they tell the tale of the underemployed, part-time employees, people outright laid-off/fired, those who can't find a job after months of looking, how many private vs. public employees there are, etc etc...?
There's a lot more to consider than just a number.
I'm also interested to know about the budgets of a right to work state as opposed to a state where unions are a must.
I'm too lazy to research this stuff for myself. All I do is research. So if someone would gladly fine those numbers for me! 
@EvanHunter (4026)
• United States
23 Feb 11
I was told the unemployment rate is based off of those who are actually getting unemployment so I suspect that you are probably right about the true number being hidden. But I am willing to bet on the numbers still being pretty mixed. I am also willing to bet between banking practices and the move of most of this countries production to other countries far outweighs job losses because of unions. Here is the break down of how they come up with the numbers http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
"In addition, the insured unemployed exclude the following:
1. Unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits
2. Unemployed workers who have not yet earned benefit rights (such as new entrants or reentrants to the labor force)
3. Disqualified workers whose unemployment is considered to have resulted from their own actions rather than from economic conditions; for example, a worker discharged for misconduct on the job
4. Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits"
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
23 Feb 11
I agree with you 100%. Other countries' production costs the U.S. more jobs than public unions do.
But there's also the fact that it's a little tougher to lose a union job, even if you're an absolutely suck-azz employee whose skills only extend to managing the phones come election time. So while I don't put blame on the unions for America's unemployment, I still see that there is a whole lot wrong in that system, the worst of it being that public unions do not operate anything even remotely close to a sound economic system. In a lot of cases, as with crappy teachers, it's too much for far too little.
...
The stat that confuses me a little there, maybe because it's 3am and I'm seeing double, is the "Otherwise eligible unemployed persons who do not file for benefits." How is that calculated if they do not file? Whatever method they have, it doesn't sound like it could be accurate. Well, unless this birthmark on my arm is really a computer chip. 
@EvanHunter (4026)
• United States
23 Feb 11
"Well, unless this birthmark on my arm is really a computer chip." Who knows it could be I would recommend going to a doctor to get it removed but they are probably in on it also. So you should remove it yourself using a hot sharp knife...lol. But seriously basically what it is saying is if you are laid off and don't file than they don't count it in their figures.
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
23 Feb 11
Well it is a hit and miss it seems to depend on what those states have in them. The major issue we have in the United States is that it is extremely expensive for Businesses to run in the United States as we tax and regulate a ton of things because people would rather have the Government do it that maybe have Unions do the Job that OSHA does right now.
A little note about those numbers they only include the people who have "actively" been looking for a job. So the next question is how do they define "actively" well it is defined as having looked for a job in the last two weeks. So the numbers could be higher but Unemployment only counts for the people who are actively looking for a job only and not all people who are collecting unemployment.
I did want to note something that California and Nevada are really close to each other and well it could be that they rely on Tourism so with the lack of a good stable economy less people are going out of state so their economies within those to States would be adversely effected. I think that is the main effect that is between the states it isn't the Right to Work thing it is what industries make the most money in those States. So if the State has a focus on tourist like Cali and Nevada then they will be negatively effected buy the slow economy. but if you have some of the central states they seem to have lower numbers as they are mostly food based in that people will always need what they are producing. Also the Jobs you do have their are likely to be Industrial and most likely a part of AFL-CIO or another Union type Organization so in some cases the Unions could be keeping those numbers low.
@EvanHunter (4026)
• United States
23 Feb 11
"Also the Jobs you do have their are likely to be Industrial and most likely a part of AFL-CIO or another Union type Organization so in some cases the Unions could be keeping those numbers low." Can you clarify keeping them low as in fighting to keep more people employed and fighting to keep the jobs in the country?
@dark_joev (3034)
• United States
23 Feb 11
They would be fighting to keep people employed also if a place shuts down the union if your a member may be able to secure another job for you. As for keeping jobs here that is out of the power of the unions that is a power consumers have if people where willing to spend extra money to support the higher cost of operation in the United States then more companies would stay here. Also companies have to go where the workers are for things which is a reason I supported gm going bankrupt.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
23 Feb 11
Right to work may be good for a state's unemployment numbers, but there really are so many variables involved so it's impossible to say that right to work is a large factor.
Florida, for example, had a VERY low unemployment rate before the recession because a lot of the taxes there, sales taxes specifically, were being paid by tourists, which meant that it was easy to go with no state income tax and people had more money to spend, thus more money was going into the economy all the time. With the recession people heavily cut back on vacations which hurt the state's tourism and thus led to a decrease in state revenue and business revenue and thus, people were laid off. Right to work wasn't a factor in this at all if you ask me.
@EvanHunter (4026)
• United States
24 Feb 11
Not a factor in Florida or not a factor over all in economy?
